If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

About 10 years ago, there was a major point I could not get people to see or believe. I said the sole end game of the liberalization of sexuality in our culture was to have sex with children.

You look at societies throughout history and there are many societies in which having sex with children was okay. You look at a place like Afghanistan and unless the men want to have babies, they do boys and animals. This is nothing new on the face of the earth. But, in western civilization, this is an issue and I said back then the end game was to have sex with kids.

So, I found an article on Fox News titled "Mental Health Group Looks to Remove Stigma From Pedophilia," which says:

"A group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals say it's time to change the way society views individuals who have physical attractions to children.

The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act, is lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that's put together by the American Psychiatric Association."

The DSM is the one where you look up a number for the disorder so the insurance companies will pay. And, let me remind you for the umpteenth time: there is nothing in psychology that makes it a science. What goes in and out of the DSM as a disorder is based on social pressures and voting. It has nothing to do with science. I want you all clear...psychology is NOT a science.

"The group says its mission is to help pedophiles before they create a crisis, and to do so by offering a less critical view of the disorder."

That's just a bunch of bull and it's words. Words sell things, and even "nice" words can be co-opted to do some awful things.

"B4U-Act said that 38 individuals attended a symposium in Baltimore ...[and] the speakers in attendance concluded that "minor-attracted" individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged."

I said a long time ago the end game of all this social liberalization (unknown to people even amidst the social liberalization) was to do your kids and not be criminalized for it, and this is what this article refers to.

Many of you may not know or may not remember the American Psychological Association published the infamous "Rind article" in its 1998 Psychological Bulletin. This was a study which downplayed the impact of men having sex with boys, finding quite a few of the boys remembered their molestations positively, and not every child who has been molested has problems.

That's like saying "I shot you in the head and you survived; therefore getting shot in the head is not a bad thing." This article was published by the American Psychological Association, and it said essentially man/boy sex was okay as long as the boys consented, because it was "love."

I went on the air after the Rind article was published and I was very clear about this article wanting to decriminalize screwing your kids. Grown men screwing your boys: "it wasn't a bad thing, it was a 'love' thing. It's a cultural problem; people are just misunderstanding it."

Well, I went ballistic and I got everyone in my office on the phone to Congress, and I asked the audience to do the same. I want to tell you the upshot, and I'm going to take all the credit for it. It was my pressure which made Congress condemn the study and the American Psychological Association for the first time in its entire history backed down and apologized and the president of the American Psychological Association found another job. I am proud to say I had enough power to mobilize enough people. And Rind and his buddies were still invited to talk everywhere and were still published in other places.

Well, that may have happened, but we still have mental health professionals going to a symposium from a group which looks to remove the stigma from pedophilia. "It's a cultural thing." If the culture allows it, it's not a bad thing, they say. It's not a bad thing for example in Afghanistan. So, if it's the norm (like Rome before it fell), what's the big deal? This is savage and all I can say is, I warned you.

I want you to understand the attempt to normalize screwing your children is still on in full gear.

They refer to pedophiles as "minor-attracted individuals." How benign can you make it? That's why I call things as they are. There needs to be clarity. When you say "minor-attracted individuals," you can follow it up with "are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized." So, don't be impressed just because someone is a psychologist or a psychiatrist. You have to be very afraid because people get into positions of power to change things. If I were a pedophile and I wanted to get it normalized and not criminalized, I would secretly and quietly get a bunch of my buddies and we'd join the psychological associations and teacher associations -- everywhere there are kids -- and get in positions of power. And then we'd gently start using different words (i.e., words that don't shock, words that don't alarm, words that don't send up red flags) and slowly make it happen. Remember the Rind study said it was not a problem; kids were not hurt by this. And the American Psychological Association actually published that.

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males," said the presentation. "At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children ... Normal males are aroused by children."

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is "natural and normal" was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included "Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis," and "Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia."

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O'Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. "Wonderful!" he wrote on his blog afterwards. "It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!"

Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex....

Let's start with the average diameter of a six year old boy's anus. Then take the average diameter of an aroused adult male's penis. Now let's take a cylindrical object proportionally corresponding to the difference between the two, oh maybe three inches in diameter, and jam it up the anus of these pedophile psychologists (in controlled laboratory conditions, of course) and by medical examination as well as anecdotal evidence determine whether they believe any "lasting" harm was done to them. The study would of course provide free Depends to the participants.

What do you call an arrogant bully that can never admit it when he's wrong? Mr. President.

Let's start with the average diameter of a six year old boy's anus. Then take the average diameter of an aroused adult male's penis. Now let's take a cylindrical object proportionally corresponding to the difference between the two, oh maybe three inches in diameter, and jam it up the anus of these pedophile psychologists (in controlled laboratory conditions, of course) and by medical examination as well as anecdotal evidence determine whether they believe any "lasting" harm was done to them. The study would of course provide free Depends to the participants.

Wouldn't work. The bone smugglers would be climbing all over each other to sign up.

It has long been known (at least 40 years) that mainstreaming of Pedophilia is third on the list of Christianity undermining social changes (after abortion/euthanasia and homosexual mainstreaming) on the Agenda of our tranzie prog elite required to prepare for an open ban on Christianity and physical extermination of those who resist 're-education'. My guess is that unless those who call themselves Christian take up arms and resist in a physical take no prisoners way we have perhaps 25 years before America (including the 'church') mainstreams this pagan/roman/talmudic/koranic practice.

It has long been known (at least 40 years) that mainstreaming of Pedophilia is third on the list of Christianity undermining social changes (after abortion/euthanasia and homosexual mainstreaming) on the Agenda of our tranzie prog elite required to prepare for an open ban on Christianity and physical extermination of those who resist 're-education'. My guess is that unless those who call themselves Christian take up arms and resist in a physical take no prisoners way we have perhaps 25 years before America (including the 'church') mainstreams this pagan/roman/talmudic/koranic practice.

It may take a while, but I think I'm actually starting to believe some of that. It's confusing because most of these people who advocate the more socially liberal policies would never harm a child like that. Problem is you have a segment of the sickass left (I won't even call it the far left, that's an insult to even them), who will advocate abortion after birth (in one of those European journals if people aren't up on it) and allowing pedophilia.

Evidence has emerged that the views of the Paedophile Information Exchange influenced policy-making at the National Council for Civil Liberties when it was run by former Labour Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt.

This woman is a total wacko. She's a '70s feminist and was even investigated for communist ties. Funny how the extreme left and the so called civil liberties groups have so many communist cousins, regardless of which country they have infiltrated with amoral attitudes.

She also thought that men were not necessary in the raising of children and even went so far as to say that they shouldn't be in the home with children. She also was disparaging towards stay at home mothers, thought they should work outside the home.